LBReport.com

News / In Detail

Will Multiple Bee Hives, Chickens, Goats Be Your New Neighbors? Read Ordinance Coming to June 23 Council Vote, Advanced By Vice Mayor Lowenthal (w/ Gonzalez, Supernaw & Andrews), Slightly Revised From Narrowly-Failed 2013 Measure


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(June 21, 2015, 6:50 a.m.) -- Will these be your new neighbors?




An ordinance proposing to ease restrictions on the ability of residents to keep multiple bee hives, chickens and goats is being brought to the City Council on June 23 by Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal, joined by Councilmembers Dee Andrews, Lena Gonzalez and Daryl Supernaw. The proposal comes a little over two years after a similar measure drew sharply polarized public testimony and narrowly failed passage (4-3, five affirmative votes required for passage.)

There have been no additional public hearings since July 2013 (although there were over two years of hearings before then), but the Council now has six new members, one of whom, Daryl Supernaw, is a co-agendizer of the item. He has replaced former 4th dist. Councilman/now-Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell, who opposed easing restrictions on bees and goats.

[Scroll down for photos and further.]




The new item is publicly agendized -- but verbally camouflaged -- with no mention in its agendizing title of its real-world subject matter, which is to remove certain restrictions on keeping multiple bee hives, chickens and goats. The less-than-transparent agendizing verbiage, which is part of Vice Mayor Lowenthal's agendizing memo and was copied onto the formal agenda, is: "Request the City Attorney bring an ordinance within 30 days to amend Title 6 of the City's Municipal Code based on previous draft language developed in consultation with members of the community, Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, Office of Sustainability and City Attorney's office (attached)."

To view the text of the now proposed ordinance (slightly amended from its prior version), click here and scroll to pdf page 14. [The City Clerk's office indicates that Vice Mayor Lowenthal asked that a "revised attachment" be distributed on this item and the link above that we posted goes to what's marked as a revised attachment. We presume the proposed ordinance text begins at page 14 of the revised attachment pdf document. The ordinance text that was originally included as part of her agendizing memo is at this link.]

In her agendizing memo, Vice Mayor Lowenthal writes in pertinent part:

Long Beach has made strides to become a more livable city thanks in part to policies and initiatives relating to bicycling, pedestrianism, sustainability, conservation, emissions reduction, beach water quality and healthy food choices. Offering more residents the opportunity to be closer to the food sources in their diet is another sustainable, healthy and socially just policy that City Council should reconsider. Along with fruit & vegetable gardens in yards and community plots, urban agricultural options involving animals are an important solution for people who wish to gain access to secure, affordable and nutritious food.

City staff painstakingly researched numerous municipal ordinances and interviewed staff from other cities to learn about the positive and negative impacts of implementation. The Environmental Committee also dedicated a great deal of time and consideration to the policy.

The attached draft amendments to the Municipal Code protect neighbors, animals and personal property while providing residents with appropriate sized properties and facilities the opportunity to pursue a particular lifestyle. For Long Beach to allow residents to own up to four large breed dogs without regulating their living quarters, but not allow residents to own animals such as goats or chickens within acceptable parameters is inconsistent. There are policies and procedures for enforcement of animals on private property in place already and Animal Care Services staff believes this policy will not have a significant impact on their enforcement, public safety and adoption resources.

More so than goats and chickens, bees received the most attention from Council and concerned residents during the last discussion of urban agriculture. However, anyone with flowers, fruits or vegetables in their yard can thank the bees visiting their garden on a daily basis. Whether from wild or domestic hives, bees serve a beneficial role in our community and their well-documented decline is cause for concern among allergic and non-allergic residents alike. Despite their incredible contribution to our daily lives, bees have a muchmaligned reputation. Indeed, the perception that a hive of bees next door equates to hundreds of bees in a neighbor's yard is inaccurate; bees are sophisticated and social animals that approach nectar and pollination like campaign workers streaming out to all parts of a community. Bees travel through a community on an aerial street grid system sometimes stretching as much as 4 miles from their hive. Some bees in the hive have short routes, others much longer. To bunch up around one group of flowers in a neighbor's yard would not be efficient or productive. With proper requirements for screening around the hive, bees will take a path well above the immediate area to their intended destination. In fact, it is more likely that most neighbors aren't even aware that a hobby beehive is located nearby.

Additionally, most calls to ACS are the result of wild bee swarms or hives located in trees, walls and attics. So while the fear of being stung by a bee is certainly real for residents with an allergy, it is clear from our prior discussion of urban agriculture that a public education campaign about bees and their behaviors would benefit residents, city leaders and perhaps most importantly, bees.

[Emphasis in original] One noteworthy change has been made to the attached draft ordinance in Section 6.20.180 (Goats -Dehorned). Based on conversations with the community and livestock experts, Animal Care Services recommends language that requires all goats to be dehorned should be removed from the ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT

According to staff's analysis in a prior report to the City Council, additional workload associated with the implementation of this policy is expected to be minimal and absorbed within current budgeted resources. The anticipated revenue generated from the proposed new fees is expected to be minimal. There is no impact to jobs associated with the recommended action.

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement

Long Beach residents are already allowed to keep chickens, goats and bees but with a number of restrictions, including properly line set-backs, making it especially difficult to comply with the restrictions in some densely populated parts of the city.

The last time such an item came up (July 16, 2013), it drew extended, polarizing public testimony.



Opponents of the measure included veteran animal advocates (including several active in Friends of Long Beach Animals), some citing the workload for Long Beach Animal Care services staff. Asked by Councilmembers about current agency resources and funding, ACS chief Ted Stevens and Parks & Rec. Dir George Chapjian indicated that they believed that any additional workload could be managed with current resources and if new costs resulted, those could be brought back to the Council and revisited.

Other public speakers cited odors, flies and other nuisance issues. Some noted that some people can be allergic to bee stings but not know it. One speaker said bluntly she was against turning the city into farm land, and if people want farming they should move to the country. Others rhetorically asked how the city could handle nuisances from livestock when it couldn't handle visible and audible illegal conduct from fireworks.

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement

One Cal Hts resident argued against bringing in livestock when the city already has a coyote problem (offering a new food to predators.) Another opponent said a CEQA examination hadn't been conducted on the proposal's potential impacts.

Urban agriculture supporters urged equality in how City ordinances treat chickens and goats compared to dogs and cats. Several advocates said noises, odors, flies and bites from dogs and cats are more of a problem than with chickens and goats. Others cited the benefits of having the public, and especially children, see from where their food comes, and Long Beach residents should have non-corporate sources for their food (some citing non-genetically-modified foods.)

Supporters said odors and nuisances shouldn't result if animals are properly kept and added that other cities had enacted urban agriculture measures without experiencing cost and additional workload (some experiencing less workload).

Regarding bee stings (with up to four hives proposed), Councilman Johnson asked City Hall's Health Officer, Dr. Mitchell Kushner, for his view on the risks of serious reactions by some to bee stings [some people may experience potentially life threatening reacions]. Dr. Kushner said the risk was very small...but declined to say it was zero.

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement


Advertisement

Two Councilmembers were absent on the measure: Councilwoman Schipske was out for the entire meeting (pre-planned trip in part for a Sacramento meeting of the state Medical Board on which she served) and Councilman DeLong (present earlier in the meeting) who exited the Council Chamber as the agenda item came up. Schipske has been succeeded by Councilwoman Stacy Mungo, and DeLong has been succeeded by Councilwoman Suzie Price. With four co-agendizers, only one additional Council vote is now needed to approve the measure from advancing to a second Council enacting vote...but the lack of a fifth vote could continue to block it. That fifth vote [who could possibly make a substitute motion(s)] could come from Councilmembers Price, Mungo, Uranga, Austin or Richardson.

In July 2013 Council colloquy, Councilman Austin (who ultimately voted "no") cited possible unintended consequences with the measure and now-exited Councilman Neal (who also voted "no") was even more blunt, saying he'd received uniformly negative responses from his NLB district, including a petition urging him to vote "no."

O'Donnell moved to approve the proposal's provisions regarding chickens but not regarding goats and bees. Faced with O'Donnell's substitute motion (which Johnson first broached in Council colloquy in hopes of reaching a five vote compromise), then-Vice Mayor Garcia instead made a substitute-substitute motion that was the same as Lowenthal's motion but with a proviso to examine the ordinance results in six months [which the Council could do any time without the proviso.]

In July 2013, all three motions came up one vote short, with O'Donnell's substitute (approving measures for chickens only) failing 4-3 (Yes; O'Donnell, Johnson, Austin, Neal; No: Garcia, Lowenthal, Andrews) and the other two motions (to enact the full ordinance) failing by the same margin (Yes: Garcia, Lowenthal, Andrews, Johnson; No: O'Donnell, Austin, Neal).

What will happen with a new Council (with six new members since the last time it came to a Council vote) remains to be seen.

Developing.

An earlier version of this story mistaken stated the Council meeting date as July 23 when it's actually June 23.



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com







Adoptable pet of the week:






Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2015 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here